Conocimientos agroecologicos tradicionales, genero, en sistemas agroealimentarios.

Ramirez‑Santos et al.
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-023-00576-6
Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomodicine
Open Access
REVIEW
Gendered traditional agroecological
knowledge in agri‑food systems: a systematic
review
Ana G. Ramirez‑Santos1 , Federica Ravera2* , Marta G. Rivera‑Ferre3 and Mar Calvet‑Nogués3
Abstract
Traditional agroecological knowledge (i.e. TAeK) is gaining recognition for its potential contribution to climate change
adaptation in food systems, ecosystems restoration and food insecurity. Despite the existing literature on Traditional
Ecological Knowledge and its nexus with food security, how gender critically influences the distribution of such
knowledge within agri-food systems has not yet been systematically analysed. In this regard, this systematic review
attempts to answer four questions: 1) How does the literature on gender and TAeK in agri-food systems evolved tem‑
porally, geographically and in different agroecosystems? 2) How are gender and intersectionality mainly approached
by such literature? 3) How do the articles address gendered dimensions in TAeK within the agri-food system activities?
4) What are the main drivers of change that influence TAeK and adaptive responses? The results show the gendered
nature of TAeK in relation to food production, processing, and conservation activities, and how these activities are
linked to tasks and activities, gender-specific knowledge, and spaces where gender discrimination is reproduced. The
review also identifies elements that delimit and/or take part of the development of TAeK, such as gendered access
to resources, gendered institutions, and the identification of the main drivers of change and impacts of TAeK erosion
and biodiversity loss. These results are discussed in terms of power relations that interact with sociocultural norms and
practices according to the specific geographical context and agroecosystem.
Keywords Adaptation, Agri-food system, Gendered knowledge, Gendered spaces, Traditional knowledge, Women
Introduction
Indigenous local knowledge (i.e. ILK), that is, the understandings, skills, and philosophies developed by societies
with long histories of interaction with their natural environment [1, 2], plays a key role in the conservation and
*Correspondence:
Federica Ravera
[email protected]
1
UNESCO Chair of Sustainability, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, C/
Colom, 1 – Edificio TR1, 08222, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain
2
Department of Geography, University of Girona, Pl. Ferrater i Mora, 1,
17004 Girona, Spain
3
INGENIO (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València), Edifici 8E, 4ª planta,
Universitat Politècnica de València, Camí de Vera, s/n, 46022 Valencia,
Spain
sustainable management of ecosystems, as well as in the
adaptation to climate change and ecosystems’ resilience
[3] For that reason, it has been widely acknowledged by
scientists and international organizations like the Intergovernmental Platform Biodiversity Ecosystem Services
(IPBES) [4] or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) [5].
ILK is considered a body of knowledge and practices
for the management of resources in a given context,
not associated with any formal learning or training, but
that contributes to conserving biodiversity and the sustainable use of natural resources in different ecosystems [6–8]. Indigenous knowledge (IK) is considered an
important cultural component usually transmitted orally
and by imitation [9, 10]. IK or folk knowledge refers to
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creat​iveco​
mmons.​org/​publi​cdoma​in/​zero/1.​0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
the unique knowledge confined to a particular culture
or society, while local knowledge is more referred to
context specific knowledge, for example, agroecological
specific knowledge. ILK is often equated with traditional
knowledge.
Adapted from these definitions, traditional agroecological knowledge (TAeK) is defined as a cumulative body
of knowledge, traditions, practices, beliefs, institutions,
and worldviews acquired through the direct dependence between cultural groups (Berkes [6]) and their agroecosystems and food systems, and generationally adapted
and enriched over time [6, 11, 12].
TAeK integrates a deep understanding about the optimum management of agroecosystems functions in a
culturally adapted way [12, 13] and contributes to food
production, transformation and conservation, health
enhancement and improved livelihoods and human
welfare, including both biophysical aspects and cultural
values [14, 15]. In the last few years, there has been a
growing interest in understanding TAeK contributions to
climate change adaptation, food security, and the restoration of ecosystems associated with food production. The
IPCC noted that TAeK is absolutely necessary to build
sustainable food systems capable to adapt to climate
change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions [16]. In
this line, a variety of empirical systematic reviews have:
i) explored the importance of TAeK in the contribution
of biodiversity conservation and environmental management, its quick erosion due different socio-economic and
cultural factors, identifying different existing conservation initiatives to maintain this knowledge [17]; ii) shown
how sustainable agricultural practices (such as integrated, soil, crop, landscape, water, and genetic management) can improve the resilience to climate change [18];
or iii) identified how agroecological practices contribute
to the alleviation of community vulnerability [19]. Systematic reviews have also explored how ILK understandings (knowledge systems) are addressed in sustainable
transformation research, and how the indigenous and
transformation understandings are represented in the literature [18]. In addition, the connections between the set
of agroecological practices affecting ecosystem services
have been explored [20].
TAeK is gendered, with men and women holding different knowledge [19, 21]. Different reviews exist that
analyse TAeK gender issues. Some have addressed the
connections between gender and agrobiodiversity conservation, showing that gender relations determine and
shape how women and men relate to, and interact with,
environmental resources [19, 20, 22]. Women’s ILK has
been discussed in relation to its crucial role in the market economy, to achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals (i.e. SDGs), and its relevance to avoid serious
Page 2 of 19
consequences for the survival and development of local
communities [23]. Culturally specific and dynamic relationships between gender and agroecological knowledge,
considering age, ethnicity, cultural norms, the gender
division of rights and responsibilities as critical elements that influence the acquisition and adaptation of
local agroecological knowledge have been explored [24].
Under the lens of feminist political ecology (i.e. FPE)1,
the identification of differential knowledge of men and
women about natural resources and the experiences of
inequality in accessing certain natural resources have
been analysed [26].
Although there are studies that explore the gendered
spheres of ILK, as the central role played by men and
women in agrobiodiversity conservation, biodiversity
management, anthropogenic landscapes, food resources,
and the inequitable power structures that affect women’s
access to resources, there is not a review that explore
the importance of gender as a critical variable that influence TAeK in the whole agri-food system2 differentiated by type of agroecosystems.3 Since men and women
have different, equal, or complementary TAeK about the
production, transformation, and conservation of certain resources in specific agroecosystems, it is necessary
to identify and make it visible the different daily experiences that men and women experiment and that critically
affect the way in which this TAeK unfolds, transforms,
and continues. In this respect, access to resources is considered as a critical element that influences the base for
applying, adapting, modifying, transmitting, and maintaining TAeK and is integrated into the review analysis along with gendered tasks and activities, gendered
1
FPE brings feminist theory and objectives to political ecology and suggests
gender in relation to class, race, and other relevant axes of power shape access
to and control over natural resources and doing so helps to demonstrate how
social identities are constituted in and through relationships with nature and
everyday material practices [25].
2
Agri-food system is considered a complex system including a series of
activities, actors, and interactions along the agri-food value chain from
access to resources, input supply, and production of crops, livestock, and
other agricultural commodities to transportation, processing, retailing,
wholesaling, and preparation of foods to consumption and disposal, contributing to the satisfaction of human food security [27]. Agri-food systems
also include the enabling policy environments and cultural norms around
food (IFPRI, 2021). In this review, under the lens of the FPE, we also consider access to resources as part of the agri-food system.
3
The agroecosystems concept is adopted from the agroecological studies,
where it is conceived as an open system that constantly interacts with the
physic, biotic, social, economic, and cultural environment. The agroecosystem is modified by human beings to obtain goods or services with different purposes, and there are also dynamics and relationships between the
culture and its physical–biological environment. This concept allows us to
cover more than the agroecosystem understood as the agricultural system
and incorporate in this analysis surrounding ecosystems that are part of
these interactions, such as cropping system, homegarden, agroforestry, forestry, pastoral and silvopastoral, and internal watersheds and wetlands [28].
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
knowledge, gendered crops, and gendered division of
rights and responsibilities in spaces, which is referred
such as gendered space. Addressing this gap of information is important to understand the gender-differentiated
contributions and strategies required to conserve and use
TAeK, as well as to address the gender inequalities and
power structures affecting women and men’s knowledge
in the agri-food system activities. This will allow to preserve TAeK and the agroecosystems on which women
and men depend but also to better design adaptation policies that consider the differences in knowledge linked to
gender.
This article aims at filling such gaps. To do this, four
main questions are set: 1) How does the literature on
gender and TAeK in agri-food systems evolved temporally, geographically and in different agroecosystems? 2)
How are gender and intersectionality mainly approached
by such literature? 3) How do the articles address gendered dimensions in TAeK within the agri-food system
activities? 4) What are the main drivers of change that
influence TAeK and adaptive responses?
Materials and methods
Literature review and data collection
We conducted a systematic review using the guidelines
for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management [29]. The search of literature (updated in
March 2020) was performed through the web database
Scopus (https://​www.​scopus.​com) with the double objective of 1) reviewing scientific literature on TAeK in agrifood systems and traditional agricultural knowledge and
2) specifically, reviewing it from a gender perspective.
Three groups of root keywords were used around agrifood system, knowledge, and gender to make a simultaneous combination (e.g. "Agr*" AND "local knowledge"
OR "indigenous knowledge" OR "ecological knowledge"
AND "wom*" OR "fem*" OR "gender"). In a preliminary search, we obtained N = 1030 documents of which
N = 247 were selected after screening title, abstract and
keywords. Exclusion criteria included: documents that
were not directly linked to agri-food systems; documents
that did not incorporate gender as a theme. These papers
were subsequently reviewed in depth, resulting in a further exclusion of N = 147, as they did not deeply include
a gender analysis. We also excluded conference proceedings and brochures as well as papers related to fishing
management leaving out the TAeK of aquatic resources
and species since the focus of the analysis is on TAeK in
agri-food systems. Mycology papers that did not study
traditional management or did not focus on a case study
were also excluded. However, internal watershed, such as
streams and rivers, and freshwater wetlands management
Page 3 of 19
has been included because of its repercussions on agroecosystems. Of the 101 selected, 10 were books, theoretical and review papers, and were also excluded to avoid
replication bias (see Fig. 1) (see Additional file 1).
Results and discussion
General overview of the literature in TAeK and gender
Temporal trends of publications
In our database, the first empirical paper studying TAeK
linked to the agri-food system from a gender perspective
was published in 1997. The number of scientific publications modestly increased in 2009 (N = 4) and 2012
(N = 5), with the highest peak in 2015 (N = 12) and 2019
(N = 13) (Fig. 2).
In the 90s, there were very few studies on gender, most
of them dealing with women’s issues rather than gender.
The publications principally explored how indigenous
groups and women’s environmental knowledge could
potentially contribute to environmental management
(N = 2). During the 2000s, gender was better integrated
in the analysis, including studies on gendered knowledge and perceptions of management strategies (N = 6),
gendered knowledge acquisition and transmission, also
in relation to gender division of labour (N = 5). From
2010 to present, the topics expanded to include understanding the role of institutions and other societal factors that influence the gendered dimensions of TAeK
and its effects, such as the role of gendered participation
and formal and informal institutions and networks in
sustaining biological diversity (N = 3), or in maintaining
and promoting agricultural genetic diversity resources
to promote food security and food sovereignty (N = 11),
the gendered division of labour in environmental management (N = 20); and the inclusion of a more intersectional approach, i.e. the intersection of gender with other
sources of oppression, such as social status or age (N = 9).
Geographical distribution and agroecosystem types
The 91 empirical papers of our database were spread
across 37 countries around the globe (Africa N = 35,
America N = 13, Europe = 11; Asia = 31; Australia N = 1).
Most of the papers were in the Global South (74%,
N = 67), mainly India (N = 15), Burkina Faso (N = 6),
Ethiopia (N = 6), Brazil (N = 5), and Mexico (N = 5);
while only a few were in the Global North (26%, N = 24),
especially in Spain (N = 7). Surprisingly, despite the rich
endogenous cultures in Canada and the USA, we found
no papers analysing gendered TAeK in that area using
our search string (see Fig. 3).
Several studies identified specific cultural settings
where TAeK is developed. African studies mainly
referred to ethnic groups (N = 28), Asian to tribe communities (N = 9) followed by ethnic groups (N = 7), and
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
Page 4 of 19
Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the literature review process
Latin America studies mainly to Indigenous groups
(N = 7). Also, the papers reported minority and marginalized groups, mainly in Asia (N = 9; N = 8) and Africa
(N = 3, N = 6). European studies define TAeK as knowledge of rural communities (N = 9).
Concerning the agroecosystems analysed, agroforestry (N = 27) and agricultural system (N = 27) were the
most documented.
Agroforestry was mostly documented in West Africa
(N = 7), East Africa (N = 6), and South Asia (N = 6). The
papers reported information on TAeK related to interactions between tree species, use of wild edible plants
(WEPs) and integration of edible plants in traditional
agroforestry design [30], and contribution of gathering practices in subsistence agriculture as food supplements [31]. TAeK related to gathering was the main
practice described and allocated to women. Both men
and women possess TAeK about identification of characteristics of plants (different uses of the different parts
of the plant), period of harvesting, culinary, medicinal
and ethnoveterinary uses. However, men and women
tend to use native plants in different ways and show
different degrees of knowledge in relation to age, the
space, and geographic zone in which they operate or
their gendered role [32, 33]. Yet, considering agricultural activity within agroforestry systems, women’s
gathering knowledge was mainly related to subsistence
farming and gathering food for family needs [34–39],
while men were often responsible for gathering constructions and fodder resources in areas far from the
household [31, 40].
Agricultural systems (N = 27) were mostly documented in South Asia (N = 6) and West Africa (N = 5).
These studies mainly describe homegardens’ practices.
Women and men show different forms of TAeK with specific reference to i) the conservation of genetic resources
that involves knowledge of seed varieties, selection,
preservation, and storage; e.g. in South Asia, women
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
Page 5 of 19
Fig. 2 Temporal distribution of the 91 empirical papers (year of publication) analysed, the gendered TAeK topics addressed, and specific
international events that could interact with the scientific production
have accumulated immense knowledge of seed collection and seed preservation about a huge variety of vegetables and tubers [41]; in the same area, women of the
Bar tribe are the major custodians in the conservation
and management of rice seed for food production [42];
ii) cultivation methods, like in South Asia, where selection, conservation, and sowing of rice seeds is considered
“men’s domain”, but women have extensive knowledge
about rice varieties, seed selection techniques, cultivation methods of different rice seed species and pest control measures [41]; iii) indigenous crops and small-scale
farming as an important component of food sovereignty;
such as the case of South Africa where women grow
indigenous varieties mainly in homegardens, making
food available and avoiding grocery purchases [43]; in
particular in West Africa, the importance of small-scale
vegetable production in the family diet and generating
household income is highlighted, e.g. Amaranth species
are the most cultivated, as they are consumed during all
seasons and used for many dishes in the local kitchens,
and women play and important role in their commercialization [44]; iv) irrigation methods, especially in drylands; as in South Asia where in order to adapt to climate
change, men have gradually improved their irrigation
infrastructure through irrigation canals, reservoirs, and
water diversion systems to maintain agricultural production [45, 46].
Pastoral (N = 10) and agropastoral systems (N = 8)
from a food system and gender perspective were mainly
described in Africa and Europe. In East Africa (N = 6),
women play a vital role within the pastoral system, even
if they have been referred to as the “hidden hands” in
spite of they are primarily responsible for taking care of
smaller, younger, and sick animals around the home, and
they have TAeK of milking, milk processing and marketing [47]; however, in West Africa men tend to be more
Fig. 3 Geographical distribution. Number of papers published by country, and description of agroecosystem by geographical areas; deep black countries have more than 6 papers
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
Page 6 of 19
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
knowledgeable about livestock in many traditional societies [48]. In Europe (N = 6), the literature addressed men
and women TAeK related to the transformation and food
processing of meat (N = 3) and dairy products (N = 3)
[49], and one paper described men and women TAeK
related to pastoralist practice and transhumance, where
very few women are fully involved in transhumance
because most of the daughters of transhumance herders migrate or are employed in other activities (N = 1)
[50]. In Asia (N = 2), for instance, studies on gender roles
in livestock have indicated that feeding, milking, cleaning, caring for the animals, administering medication,
are mainly carried out by women [51], and the relation
of informal social networks, namely friendship and the
practice of migration, in the distribution of knowledge
about soils, ethnoveterinary and sheep breeds among
male and female shepherds [52].
Forestry (N = 16) was mainly described in Asia (N = 5),
Africa (N = 5), and America (N = 4); in South Est Asia
(N = 3) papers noted gender-based differentiation in
gathering of WEPs [32]; in West Africa (N = 1) men and
women’s knowledge uses of fruit tree species [53]. In
South America (N = 2), gathering practices within forest
showed gendered TAeK related to men and women’s ethnobotanical knowledge and the use and management of
plant species for food and medicinal purposes [54], and
medicinal knowledge contributions to health sovereignty
[55].
Globally, the least addressed ecosystem was internal
watershed/freshwater wetlands (N = 2), with one case
in each of the geographical areas of South Africa and
Europe. In South Africa (N = 1), the paper addressed men
and women’s knowledge related to the flood recession
farming systems in communities residing along river systems and describes the knowledge about risks of floodings [56]. In the case of Europe, this knowledge is greater
among men, probably due to the “masculinization” process that has taken place in rural communities [57].
Approaches to gender and intersectionality adopted
Gender is addressed mainly in the methods (N = 23)
operating as a variable of data analysis used as a component that helps in the identification of the knowledge
distribution among genders. Gender is presented in the
discussion addressing gendered division of labour within
the agri-food system activities of production, processing and conservation (N = 65), the distribution of TAeK
among women and men in specific society, community and agroecosystem (N = 15), gendered perceptions
related to climate change effects (N = 5), gendered perceptions of the natural environment and food resources
(N = 3), gendered perception of vulnerability related to
climate change factors (N = 1) [47], and also the concept
Page 7 of 19
of gendered blind since in the analysis the gender was not
a significant cultural attribute for knowledge (N = 1) [36].
The results addressed mainly gender variable distribution and different levels of TAeK between men and
women combining other elements such as demographic
variables, i.e. age and level of education, and agroecosystem site characteristics, i.e. altitude and climate (N = 21).
A few papers addressed specific gender approaches in
the literature, mainly FPE (N = 1) and intersectionality
(N = 8). From these perspectives, the intersection of gender, ethnicity, and age has been referred to as elements
that can significantly shape the TAeK body in specific
ecosystems [48, 58, 59] and have a direct impact on the
decline and disappearance of TAeK [60]. In South Africa,
the intersection of race and indigenous categories, in
addition to gender, deals with the challenging experiences of racialized indigenous women to continue with
cultivation practices to achieve food sovereignty [43].
In South Asia it is analysed how development initiatives
have failed to integrate and enhance women’s knowledge related to agriculture and improved food security,
since the construction and transformation of that TAeK
is largely dependent on government and community that
are still maintained in patriarchal power structures [41].
Other authors (N = 3) consider how the intersection of
gender and class shapes inequalities and negative impact
on women’s access, management, and control over
resources [26, 41, 61], or on women’s unequal access to
knowledge about land rights, resource tenure, and external technologies and practices that emanate from formal
institutions [46].
Gendered TAeK in agri‑food system activities
This section presents an analysis of gendered access to
resources and gendered institutions, as elements that can
potentially affect the development, acquisition, permanence, and continuity of TAeK. Subsequently, it shows
how the different gendered dimensions of TAeK within
the agri-food system activities are addressed, considering
geographical context and agroecosystem type.
Gendered access to resources
Articles addressed gendered issues related to the access
to land, seeds, and forests as potential barriers to the use
of TAeK. Regarding access to land (N = 13), the literature
addresses land tenure which is governed by customary
laws based on an intergenerational transfer of land in
patrilineal societies where all inheritance rights go to the
male (N = 4), who also represents the family in its external relations over the use of natural resources in the communities or villages [60, 62, 63]. In other cases (N = 5),
women can only access land through secondary channels
as their family membership or marriage or otherwise,
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
their control over the resource base is negligible or nil
[35, 62, 64, 65]. In West Africa, older male heads allocate
individual fields and communal family fields, assigning
the largest fields with higher levels of soil fertility to male
members [64]. In South Asia, one case described gender differences of maintaining land rights, and gendered
exclusion due to lack of access to the social networks and
institutions that allocate land resources. Since gender
equity is not promoted in the formalization of individual
land titles, women consider land titles as unfair because
it is often given to men [41].
Gendered tenure regimes have different implications.
In forestry systems, it is affecting management strategies, women knowledge, access, and control of forest and
trees’ resources in Africa (N = 2) [62, 66], while in Asia
(N = 2), the limitation of women in decision-making and
participation in forestry results in their limited access to
forest resources [41, 51]. The gender division of labour or
gender roles that privilege men in the access to land give
them more access and control over joint family resources,
e.g. land and water, while women are exposed to a double
workload of both reproductive responsibilities and onfarm activities, which limits their capacity to generate
relationships, create networks, make independent decisions about their resources or gained/acquired knowledge of land allocation process [43, 46, 51, 64, 66, 67].
Although generally seed collection, preservation, and
knowledge associated with them are largely the domain
of women [41, 43, 68, 69], in South Asia (N = 3) it is
described that resource management for agriculture and
agrobiodiversity knowledge follows well-defined gender
roles that privilege men; even though Kurichya women
have extensive knowledge of rice cultivation, they cannot use it for actively cultivating rice on their own, as
they have no access to traditional rice seeds and land in
the rainy season [41]; in West Africa among the factors
that were identified by young and elderly women, access
to household granaries was the greatest worry since their
husbands denied them access to the household granaries,
as crop yields were decreasing due to climate variability
[61]; another particular case in West Africa addressed
men’s and women’s access to seeds through seed banks;
the analysis was done from FPE and found over the years
the banks disappeared, the main reason was that women
in the Upper West Region of Ghana were systematically
marginalized despite they play a key role in agriculture
and seed selection[70]. As a traditionally male-dominated society, from their perspective women were not
suited to these responsibilities [71].
In the access to domestic granaries (N = 2, in Asia and
Africa), strong norms of patriarchy and socially constructed relations of gender and property rights restrict
women to take food. Although women help to conserve
Page 8 of 19
and produce seeds, men allocate the quantities of grain
for daily consumption, and women’s greatest concern
was that their husbands would deny them access at times
when crop yields decrease in the face of climate variability [41, 61].
Regarding the access to water (N = 2), papers in East
Africa and South Asia showed the management of water
resources for agriculture follows clear-cut gendered
roles that privilege men[46]. Irrigation water is generally
decided by men, who influence associations responsible
for infrastructure and determine allocation schedules,
without considering women’s specific concerns [51].
Gendered institutions
Informal (N = 11) and formal (N = 1) gendered institutions are considered in the literature. The informal
networks are considered a crucial element for the continuity and transmission of the knowledge related to agrobiodiversity conservation and biodiversity management
where women interact among the community to transmit and continue with the knowledge (N = 5). Another
type of informal networks of women is created through
socialization within the community and is key elements
of supporting women’s activities within the different
agroecosystem and, additionally, reproductive work,
since these networks allow them to carry out reproductive activities and tasks within a network of support and
mutual help (N = 6). A formal institution of women farmers’ group that has been promoted by the World Bank
in India is presented, and this is recognized as a development action that aims to promote sustainable development initiatives within the women farmers’ group to
generate a positive impact on agrobiodiversity, but they
have had little success since patriarchal power structures
concern the decision-making processes in the women’s
group [41].
Gendered tasks and activities
Aspects such as gendered tasks and activities, gendered
knowledge, gendered crops, and gendered space are
detailed below (see Fig. 4).
Production. Gendered tasks and activities in production
were widely described in agroforestry systems (N = 13).
In some literature in South Asia (N = 7) and West Africa
(N = 2) tasks and activities include gathering of forest
products for food, fuel, fodder, medicine, and small-scale
trade, which are generally carried out by women. One
paper in South Asia highlights the existence of asymmetrical pressure on women and/or elders, due to women’s
roles in managing resources, fuel, water, and medicinal
plants, which requires walking increasing distances and
leaves less time to care for themselves, their children and
to participate in education and village governance [72]. In
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
Page 9 of 19
Fig. 4 Number of papers addressing TAeK and gendered dimension in production, conservation, and transformation links in different
agroecosystems
West Africa men contribute to collect fuel, animal products, and the extraction of structural fibre for construction or sale [73]. Gendered division of labour in agroforestry influences men’s and women’s relationship with local
woodlands, where women are mainly involved in collection and transformation processes of non-timber forest
products for sale [62].
The gendered tasks and activities that women and men
perform in the agricultural part of agroforestry concern
land preparation. In one case in South Asia, the chemical
spraying and fertilizer application are equal, but women
perform the irrigation [51]. In South-East Asia, men are
more active than women in land clearing, weeding, cleaning, pruning, and burning considered heavy tasks [74].
In Cropping system (MINUSCULE) in West Africa
(N = 5, South Africa (N = 3), and East Asia (N = 2) the
gender division of labour in the allocation of activities
shows that women not only work as the unpaid family worker in agriculture and other occupations but also
hold care-giving responsibilities for children and elderly
people. In South Africa the ‘traditional’ Zulu culture,
women’s task relates to cultivate, while men work in the
cities or tend cattle [43]. In East Asia, women’s task in
household and farming, men are also engaged in farming and off-farm work for wages, with a greater decisionmaking power in the production and domestic area [45].
In homegarden systems, several papers (N = 7) in Africa,
Asia, and Europe have noted that women are responsible
for vegetable production and (N = 2) additionally highlight that these activities are performed to grow crops
to supplement purchased food [41, 43, 68, 75–77]. One
paper in Africa describes that women perform more
tasks in homegardens and are more involved in weeding,
irrigation, and planting, while men’s activity is limited
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
to fencing the area [76]. In Central America, the task of
building earth ovens is carried out by men, and preparing food is performed by women; the activities associated
with the milpa only in some cases are an exclusively male
task, but usually involve the whole family [78].
In forestry system (MINUSCULE) in South Asia, management is usually in the hands of men, and they select
the cultivation site, while women accompany them in
harvesting, burning, and clearing [79]; in Central Africa,
women activities are involved in harvesting mushrooms
and are the main holders of cultural aspects related to
fungi [80].
In pastoral and agropastoral systems (N = 4), genderbased division of labour typically assigns livestock-raising practices to men. In Europe, very few women are
fully involved in transhumance, mostly because of generational renewal problems and agrarian masculinization
[50, 81]. In Africa and Asia, women’s activities are often
overlooked, but they play a vital role in pastoral production, taking care of the livestock and sick animals, feeding, milking, milk processing, and marketing when men
migrate for long periods in search of pasture or markets
[47, 51, 82].
Conservation. Gendered tasks and activities in seed
conservation were described in agroforestry (N = 4), cropping (N = 3), homegarden (N = 3), and agropastoral systems (N = 2). In South Asia (N = 3), women’s tasks related
to seed collection allow them to have a huge variety of
grains, vegetables, and tubers contributing to the conservation of agrobiodiversity [41, 42]. In South Africa, due to
the cultural norms that delegate to women the responsibility of maintaining the household food supply, they have
primary responsibility for seed collection and storage
activities [43, 60]. In Australia, knowledge of edible seeds,
including their ecology and mythology, is extensive, as is
the development of specific tasks such as singing songs
to collect, preserve, and process them, as it is part of the
contemporary cultural identity [83]. Concerning forage
conservation task and activities described in agroforestry
system (N = 2), in South Asia women collect fodder from
forest which along with other household responsibility
[84]; in West Africa men are in charge of the activities
related to fodder banks for dairy farms [85].
Transformation. The tasks and activities for human food
preparation were usually described as directly assigned to,
or performed by, an individual in the community based
on their cultural setting. However, gendered roles determine women as responsible for food/nutrition and food
preparation in most places [34–36, 38, 39]. In East Africa,
cooking is considered as women’s tasks and females were
responsible for cooking and transfer of knowledge to
Page 10 of 19
younger members, while males spend most of the time
grazing animals and hunting [31, 36]. In agricultural systems in Europe, artisanal food processing allows women
to combine family care and this activity that also provides
some income [86].
Task and activities linked to human medicine were
marginally addressed. In forestry systems (N = 2), medicinal uses of resources were more important for women as
compared to men [87]. Also, in Africa women activities
inside the kitchen were connected to sell food and medicinal products [53]. Veterinary activity in pastoral and silvopastoral systems in South-East Asia is related to men,
who are the main practitioners of ethnoveterinary tasks,
as local tradition limits females to be involved in outdoor
activities [88]. No elements related to tasks and activities
in grain conservation and animal food were found.
Gendered knowledge
Production. Gendered knowledge in production was
mainly described in agroforestry systems (N = 9), in South
Asia (N = 6) and West Africa (N = 3).
In South Asia (N = 2), articles addressed that women
have a rich and diversified knowledge in livestock
care and agriculture-based livelihoods [84, 89]. Crop
associations prevent the failure of crop varieties under
adverse conditions and pest-disease pressure. Although
this is an important practice to ensure family’s food
and nutrition security, women’s knowledge remains less
important, and men dominate agricultural development
[75].
Women were reported to be more knowledgeable than
men about insect pests, disease infestations in trees, leaf
collection dates, storage methods, and compost preparation [90]; they are aware of traditional practices, such as
burning degraded hills to clear plots to grow leafy vegetables [91], controlled burning and logging of closely
clustered trees to receive nutrient inputs and protected
from squirrels and forest fires [73]. In South Asia, (N = 1)
it is explained elderly women’s knowledge of vertical distribution of plant species across the community forest
and homegardens, and knowledge of biometeorology
(the effect of weather on plants and animals), needed to
predict weather patterns and seasons [91]. In West Africa
(N = 1) men’s and women’s differences in knowledge are
pronounced, and many of these differences stem from
a gendered division of household labour that extends
to household agriculture and agroforestry; gendered
engagement in local agroecosystems, related to the tasks
and activities on which women and men centre, engendering different agroecological knowledge related to soil
fertility and vegetation[62].
In homegardens systems (N = 5), articles located in
South Asia (N = 2), West Asia (N = 1), and South Africa
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
(N = 1) described women’s knowledge with WEPs, as
they represent the main, and in some cases the only,
source of food between field harvests or during crop
failures [43]. In South Asia (N = 1), women knowledge
was associated with farm management, seed selection,
and genetic preservation [92]. In West Asia, much of the
work related to homegardening is conducted by women,
and they have the most knowledge and make most of the
decisions regarding this space. From sowing to harvesting, there is relatively little involvement of men, but more
for hard physical work such as building fences or digging
wells. The participation of the whole family increases
when the homegarden is a source of money [68].
Conservation. We divide the conservation activity into
seed, grain, food, and forage conservation. For each of
them, we describe the gendered knowledge, tasks, and
activities in different geographical contexts and agroecosystems (see Fig. 4).
Regarding gendered knowledge related to seed conservation in agroforestry (N = 5), cropping (N = 3), and
homegarden (N = 2), in south Asia, the literature highlights women knowledge and experience in maintaining
agricultural genetic diversity, as an important element to
enhance food security and adapting to climatic variability
[43, 74, 75, 84, 90]. In addition, elder community members and women were noted as the real custodians of
knowledge of traditional crop varieties, traditional seed
management, classifications of seeds, exchange systems,
and sociocultural institutions that support the continuation of conservation practices [91].
Women present knowledge in food conservation in
South-East Asia, East Asia, West Africa and East Europe,
the knowledge is related to storage [93] as solar drying
mushrooms [94] and sun-drying techniques [33], The
sun-drying are used to preserve different leafy plants and
foods, so that after drying they can be used fresh, boiled,
or fried [95]. In West Africa, smoked foods, use of sacks
for storage, sun-drying techniques are considered optimal for the survival of households during food scarcity
and family health [67]. Forage conservation knowledge
was mentioned in East Africa (N = 1) knowledge on sustainable utilization of fodder species resources for grazers was presented by both men and women [96].
Transformation. We divide transformation activity into
human and animal food and medicine. For each of them
we describe the gendered knowledge, tasks and activities
in different geographical context and agroecosystems (see
Fig. 4).
Gendered knowledge of human food transformation
was widely addressed in agroforestry (N = 20) and forestry
systems (N = 10). Women and men knowledge related
Page 11 of 19
to processing of WEP’s used as nutritional supplements
in N = 12. Women’s culinary skills in using forest-based
ethnobotanicals in traditional foods in N = 8 papers [63,
97, 98]. In Livestock systems in Europe (N = 2), women,
elderly mothers in some cases, are the ones holding the
goat cheese production knowledge, and small handmade
ruminant-derived products as meat products, cheeses,
dairy produce [49, 82].
Gendered knowledge of transformation in human medicine was overall identified in agroforestry (N = 13) and
forestry systems (N = 8). A good part of the knowledge of
medicinal plants was related to women’s role of caretaking to family [38, 39, 91, 98]. Here, there is not a clear-cut
trend. For instance, in Europe [99] and West Africa [35]
men hold more knowledge than women, which reflects
the central role played by the cultural context, which
defines the spaces in which each gender relates and connects with the natural environment. For example, sometimes sociocultural elements, taboos, prohibitions, or
magical beliefs assume that men have certain power to use
certain species for medicinal treatments [54, 100, 101].
Gendered knowledge to animal food was mainly
addressed in forestry (N = 3), agroforestry (N = 2) and
livestock systems (N = 3). Here, the literature revised
showed that males have better ability and knowledge
than women to identify forage and fodder species [39, 40,
48, 79, 87, 88, 102].
Gendered knowledge related to veterinary was mainly
described in agroforestry (N = 2) and pastoral/silvopastoral systems (N = 5). Papers described that women
hold less knowledge of ethnoveterinary medicinal native
plants and WEPs than men [88, 103, 104]. For example,
in East Africa, gender distributions of medicinal plant
knowledge showed most of the traditional animal healers are males, this could be related to the local tradition of restricting these practices mainly to men, while
women are not allowed to participate in outdoor activities, but stay at home taking care of babies and performing domestic activities, so their veterinary knowledge was
limited to the use of plants found in domestic environments [88], as a result, women tend to know medicinal
practices related to animals that are closer to the household [88, 103, 104].
Gendered crops and gendered space
The existence of gendered crops was described in cropping
systems (N = 3) [41, 44, 76]; and homegardens in South
Asia, West Africa, and East Africa (N = 3)[30, 62, 93], with
men more involved in cash crops such as coffee or rice
seeds, and women in vegetables and subsistence crops.
Women’s space (N = 2) was analysed by only two papers
that identified homegarden systems as women’s area in
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
South Asia [41]and South Africa; here they referred to
small-scale vegetable production ([21, 43].
Drivers of change of TAeK: impacts and adaptation
strategies
Drivers of change of TAeK and main impacts
The main drivers of change of TAeK detected are socioeconomic and cultural changes (N = 36), environmental
changes (N = 14), and agri-food policies implementations
(N = 8). The main impacts of the drivers were related to
knowledge erosion (N = 21) and biodiversity loss (N = 20)
(see Table 1).
Among some of the drivers found, we can mention
those related to socio-economic and cultural changes,
where the papers mention socio-political intervention such as new infrastructure, and knowledge holders’
integration into market economies [93, 96, 105], local
traditions that compete with modern ways of life [56],
migration [114], and one paper in Europe addressed
the masculinization in rural communities, with women
leaving agriculture to a greater extent than men, for the
acquisition of higher educational qualifications as a mean
to break with the patriarchal European agrarian context
[115]. In relation to agri-food policies, one paper in South
Asia addressed the introduction of new rice varieties,
inorganic fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, and hand tractors, as factor of drastic change for the jobs of both men
and women, or employment opportunities lost directly
for many rural women; consequently, the local experiences and knowledge of many women farmers have been
eroded or lost [92]. Related to environmental changes,
one paper located in South Asia identified that women
are often the most affected by reduced food and nutrition
security due to their limited access to resources and the
responsibility attributed to them for family reproduction
[84].
Main adaptation strategies
Different adaptation strategies adopted by women
(N = 4), men (N = 1), and no gender specified (N = 5) to
cope with biodiversity loss and knowledge erosion were
identified (see Table 2).
The strategies mainly adopted by women (N = 4) to
address biodiversity loss are related to reducing soil
depletion and protecting crops from predators [76]; and
wild plants gathering practices considered as an adaptation strategy in periods of food scarcity [99]. To cope
with knowledge erosion, informal institutions to transfer knowledge and practices (i.e. seed conservation
practices, conserving and sustaining local biodiversity)
from one generation to another [74] and informal networks to share knowledge and improve their food security [44] have been described. Only one strategy adopted
Page 12 of 19
by men (N = 1) was identified to face biodiversity loss
in the agropastoral system in Europe, and this case can
be explained by the fact that very few women are fully
involved in transhumance because in this context they
emigrate to study or find employment [50]. Adaptive
strategies without specifying gender (N = 5) described
mainly techniques to cope biodiversity loss, such as the
use of companion trees in agroforestry systems as a climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy [30]; traditional techniques for soil and water conservation [57],
and traditional agroforestry practices to promote soil
moisture [103]. To address knowledge erosion were presented initiatives that seek the scaling-up and scaling-out
of agroecology through the digital common’s movement
[122], and the incorporation of new practices/technologies, generating a hybrid knowledge that suggests the
local capacity for socio-ecological resilience [69].
Final remarks and future research
This systematic review has provided an opportunity
to overview the gendered nature of TAeK in relation to
agri-food activities of production, transformation, and
conservation, and how these activities are linked with
specific gendered task and activities, gendered knowledge, gendered spaces where gender discrimination is
reproduced linked to power relations that interact with
sociocultural norms and practices.
The TAeK that men and women own, create, transform, delegate, or transmit within a specific geographical area and a particular type of agroecosystem is directly
linked to collectively created cultural aspects, norms,
rules, and laws that are not static, as these can either
endure or be transformed along with the development
of specific social dynamics, or drivers of change such as
environmental changes, some of them related to climate
change, or socio-economic, cultural aspects, and food
policies that are intertwined with power structures and
relations that directly affect the construction and erosion
of knowledge and biodiversity loss [123].
Since this systematic review analyses gender as a fundamental element that influences TAeK, access to resources
of women and men to certain resources is identified as
critically influencing the construction, adaptation, as well
as modifications and ways of transmission and maintenance of this body of knowledge; also, in the capacity of
men and women to ensuring food resources and life-sustaining resources daily. Access to land is one of the most
identified issues, showing that gender division of labour
and gender roles privilege men in access to land, as well
as customary laws in patrilineal societies in which all land
inheritance rights go to men. In terms of access to seeds,
women are mostly considered to be the guardians and
linked to the conservation of genetic resources, but in
Knowledge erosion
Due to the modern development and fast changing social dynamics decreasing the
cohesiveness of the sociocultural institutions [42, 75, 90]
Due to the decreasing transmission from elders to younger people [63, 87, 94, 108]
Knowledge erosion
Due to the acculturation and loss of local languages [38, 95, 106, 107, 109]
Due to social, cultural changes caused by the increase in tourism, improved roadways,
expanding urban centres [110]
New generations less likely to take part in traditional practices with a clear intergenera‑
tional gap in knowledge transmission [31, 64, 96, 107]
Local traditions compete with modern ways of life [94]
Agri-food policies
Biodiversity loss
Due to the impact of climate change [30, 44, 48, 56, 103, 104]
Knowledge erosion
Due to outmigration [57]
Biodiversity loss
Migration for outside work [65]
Increased support for large landowners and the abandonment of smallholder develop‑
ment[120]
Oriented to mechanization, modernization, large extensions of monocultures and the Knowledge erosion
integration of external elements, mostly subsidized, as fertilizers, seeds, and insecticides Due to the impact of the Green Revolution program on farming activities [92]
[51, 92, 118]
Biodiversity loss
Due to the energy-intensive agriculture [75]
Due to overharvesting [119]
Environmental changes Due to climate change (e.g. drought and floods, climate variability) [84, 116, 117]
Migration for work, a modern lifestyle education, or climate change threaten food
security [51, 72, 94, 114, 115]
Fast changing sociocultural values and acculturation, and modernity negatively impact‑ Biodiversity loss
ing the management and conservation of biological resources [91, 111, 112]
Closely linked to the erosion of cultural diversity [57]
Due to loss of social learning institutions [113]
Knowledge erosion
Due to the technological implementation in response to market forces [12, 50, 57, 69]
Biodiversity loss
Due to the ever-growing human population [74, 106]
Due to mining and logging [93]
Socio-political interventions to foster social development, and knowledge holders’
integration into market economies [93, 96, 105]
Socio-economic and
cultural change
Main Impacts
Subjects
Drivers of change
Table 1 Papers identified that relate to TAeK’s drivers of change and impacts
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
Page 13 of 19
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
Page 14 of 19
Table 2 Number of papers that identify different adaptation strategies
Adopted by women
Adopted by men
No gender specified
Biodiversity loss
Use crop residues, weeds, ashes and manure as fertilizers, shrubs are planted near the house to reduce soil
depletion and are used as living fences to protect from predators [76]
Gathering practices (i.e. wild plants) [99]
Decision-making including environmental practices and livelihood strategies [121]
Knowledge erosion
Informal institutions to transfer knowledge and practices from one generation to another [74]
Informal networks developed by women farmers linking other women to share knowledge[43]
Biodiversity loss
Adaptive strategies of mobility, diversification, selection, communal pooling, and forecasting allows adap‑
tation to climate variability [50]
Knowledge erosion
–
Biodiversity loss
The role of companion trees in generating favourable microclimatic conditions as a strategy for climate
change adaptation and mitigation [30]
Traditional soil and water conservation techniques for semi-arid and Mediterranean environments [57]
Traditional agroforestry practices saving multipurpose trees to promote soil moisture resilience, impact
mulching, and provide microhabitats [103]
Famers’ agroecological knowledge and cropping strategies [62]
Knowledge erosion
The social group as a community incorporate new practices/technologies, generate hybrid knowledge
suggesting local capacity for socio-ecological resilience [69]
Initiatives that seek the scaling-up and scaling-out of agroecology through the digital common’s move‑
ment [12]
some cultures the power structure based on patriarchal
logic favours the male figure, and women have little or
no access to resources. For example, in the cases of West
Africa and South Asia, women do not have access to traditional seeds and land in the rainy season, and when
crop yields decrease due to climate variability, access to
granaries and food is limited by men. In addition to this
privilege of men with greater access to and control over
joint family resources, in some cultures, specific seeds
and crops (i.e. such as coffee) are considered men’ crops.
Knowledge is also associated with the tasks and activities performed by men and women, and this review
delves into the fact that in different agroecosystems there
is a gendered division of household labour that extends
to tasks and activities within production, conservation,
and processing activities. On the one hand, based on
patriarchal logic, gender roles have been established that
support the idea that women are responsible for reproductive work, care, and feeding the family, and in some
cases it is found that women perform tasks and activities to ensure the satisfaction of these needs, as in the
agroforestry system where they are the ones who must
walk long distances in search of resources to meet the
nutritional and medicinal needs of the family. Another
example is the situation of women in agricultural systems, which is aggravated by the double workload, which
implies carrying out domestic chores, but also the work
of producing, conserving, and transforming food. On
the other hand, patriarchal structure through the division of labour frequently associates men roles with activities outside the domestic area such as the transhumance
where very few women are involved. This analysis also
reveals that the construction of gender roles in specific
cultures and agroecosystems is related to the acquisition,
creation, and transmission of TAeK. In most cases within
agroforestry and forestry systems, it is women who have
greater TAeK associated with specific activities such as
resource collection and transformation of these for the
family food supply, and in the case of men this knowledge
is associated with the collection of fuel, animal products, and construction materials. In addition, cases were
found where there are different degrees of knowledge
related to gathering in men and women in relation to age,
space, and geography. In addition, greater TAeK related
to transformation and processing of human food and
medicine was found in agroforestry and forestry systems;
some of the cases addressed animal food and medicine
being to a greater extent a knowledge associated with
men. To a lesser extent, we found knowledge related to
human food and medicine in homegardens, even though
they are considered women’s space because they are close
to the household. Under the lens of FPE and intersectionality, some cases addressed how the gender variable
shapes this TAeK, for example, key issues in agriculture
and food systems, such as access to seeds, water, land,
forests, and labour inputs, which extends to the struggle
of men and women to maintain ecologically viable livelihoods, and how race, culture, and ethnicity often interact
and shape knowledge construction processes in specific
agroecosystems.
However, more work is needed to address the FPE perspective and intersectionality in depth along the lines of
agri-food system and TAeK addressed in this systematic
review.
In summary, TAeK and agri-food system activities
in the different agroecosystems are structured by the
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
gendered division of labour and power relations. These
power structures allow women and men to have certain
or specific experiences, perceptions, skills, and knowledge of specific activities within the food system, related
to production, conservation, and transformation. This
gender division of labour and power structures affects
men and women in different ways; on the one hand, in
some cases it shows that women remain with this TAeK
for much longer than men, the women have more often
the possibility of transmitting it generationally within the
domestic and agroecological spaces, and women play an
important role in the economy within the production and
marketing spaces. On the other hand, and in certain cases
due to the forces of globalization, migration, wide market
exposure, and formal education, it seems that the erosion
of knowledge is also gendered. This situation is linked
to the external drivers of change that following feminist
standpoint theory [124] situates women as marginalized
actors into a favourable position in addressing current
challenges, in our case in food system transformation
based on agroecological knowledge. However, such process requires that those barriers and power imbalances
suffered by women in food systems (access to land, seed,
finance) should be challenged.
Gaps in terms of the current literature have been identified, thematically and geographically. There are agroecosystems very few explored by the literature, such as
freshwaters and livestock systems, that deserve to be
more researched in the future. Moreover, the topic is
barely explored in the global north. In general, a few articles explore the different dimensions of gender, including
gendered crops and gendered space in all the agroecosystems. Specifically, though seed conservation is widely
explored, little information has been found on the gendered knowledge and task of grain, food, and forage
conservation; as well as there is a gap of literature about
animal food and veterinary gendered knowledge and
tasks.
Page 15 of 19
species. Since articles on mycology that did not study
traditional management or did not focus on a case
study were excluded, it might be interesting to examine
it in depth in relation to gender and agri-food systems,
i.e. as a keyword.
Abbreviations
FPEFeminist political ecology
ILKIndigenous local knowledge
IKIndigenous knowledge
IPBESIntergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services
IPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
SRCCLSpecial Report on Land and Climate Change
TAeKTraditional agroecological knowledge
SDGsUN Sustainable Development Goals
WEPsWild edible plants
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1186/​s13002-​023-​00576-6.
Additional file 1. Additional methodological information.
Acknowledgements
We would acknowledge Louise Balfroid who helped with the first search of lit‑
erature within her stage of the fellowship "Actiris International". We also thank
Elisa Oteros -Rozas for a first revision of the matrix of analysis of the literature.
Finally, we acknowledge the funding institutions (see Funding).
Authors’ Information
Ana G. Ramírez-Santos, with a degree in Sociology graduated from,
BUAP University of Puebla, Mexico, and master’s degree in Sustainability
from the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC), is currently a member
of the UNESCO Chair on Sustainability and PhD candidate at UPC. ORCID
0000-0001-7990-7833.
Federica Ravera, with a degree in Environmental Sciences from the University
of Milano Bicocca, Italy, and a PhD in Environmental Sciences, specializing
in Ecological Economics from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, cur‑
rently a "Ramón y Cajal" researcher for the Department of Geography at the
University of Girona.
Marta G. Rivera-Ferre, with degree in Veterinary Medicine, specializing
in Animal Production and Agricultural Economics from the University of
Cordoba; Master’s Degree from the University of Aberdeen, PhD in Animal Sci‑
ences from University of Cordoba and PhD in Sociology from the Autonomous
University of Barcelona. Currently Research Professor at INGENIO (CSIC-Univer‑
sitat Politècnica de València) ORCID 0000-0001-8183-8398.
Limitations of the review
The literature review shows some limitations and gaps
to be further researched. Limitations in the development of this work are related to the search, since only
scientific texts in Scopus and in English were examined in depth, limiting the typology of texts analysed
on the subject, so a further expansion of the grey literature would be interesting. Another limitation arose
because of the lack of capcity to access some articles,
in particular three articles dated the 90s. In addition,
works related to fisheries management were excluded,
due to the focus of this review of analysis on TAeK in
agri-food systems, and it could be convenient to expand
the analysis of gender TAeK related to aquatic systems/
Author contributions
FR and MCN started the search and created the first structure of the database.
AGR updated the database until 2019, analysed the papers included in this
systematic review, development of the filling of the database for analysis,
within the database obtained made analysis and conclusions, and collectively
developed the final document. FR and MRF generated the main structure of
the analysis to be carried out within the article. AGR refined the analysis and
wrote a first draft. FR, MRF, and AGR developed the final document. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. The role
of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and
interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be declared. This
work got funding from the research projects SEQUAL (PCI2019-103652) and
ADAPTAL (CSO2016-78827-R) from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation
and Universities. The corresponding author FR was funded by AXA Research
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
Fund (2016) and by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universi‑
ties through the senior fellowship RAMON Y CAJAL (RyC2018-025958-I). The
open access publication was funded by the fellowship RAMON Y CAJAL
(RyC2018-025958-I).
Availability of data and materials
The “Additional file 1” contains the information related to a supplement of
information for the Materials and Methods section. The database in Excel
used and/or analysed during the current systematic review study are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 20 July 2022 Accepted: 2 January 2023
References
1. van Diemen R (ed.). IPCC, 2019: Annex I: Glossary. In: Climate change
and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and
greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. 2019. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1017/​97810​09157​988.​010
2. UNESCO. Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [Internet].
2018. Available from: http://​www.​unesco.​org/​new/​en/​natur​al-​scien​ces/​
prior​ity-​areas/​links/​relat​ed-​infor​mation/​what-​is-​local-​and-​indig​enous-​
knowl​edge.
3. Nyong A, Adesina F, Osman EB. The value of indigenous knowledge
in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African
Sahel. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang. 2007;12(5):787–97.
4. IPBES. Indigenous and local knowledge in IPBES [Internet]. IPBES. 2014
[cited 2020 Oct 9]. Available from: https://​ipbes.​net/​indig​enous-​local-​
knowl​edge.
5. Reay D, Sabine C, Smith P, Hymus G. Intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Fourth assessment report. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 2007. Available from: www.​ipcc.​ch. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. p. 103.
6. Berkes F. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and
resource management. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis; 1999. p. 209.
7. Toledo VM. La Perspectiva Etnoecológica Cinco Reflexiones Acerca de
las Ciencias Campesinas sobre la Naturaleza con Especial Referencia a
México. Ciencias. 1990;4:22–9.
8. Tresierra JC. Derechos de uso de los recursos naturales por los grupos
indígenas en el bosque tropical. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
1998. p.1-50
9. Escobar B. G. Etnobiología: introducción al paradigma de la etnobi‑
ología, Chapter 5. In: 3er Congreso Virtual de Antropología y Arque‑
ología NAyA. Ciudad Virtual de Antropología y Arqueología. 2002 [cited
2020 Aug 8]. Available from: http://​www.​emagi​ster.​com/%​0Acur​so-​
etnoc​ienci​as-​yage/​etnob​iolog​ia-​intro​ducci​on-​parad​igmae​tnobi​ologia.
10. Ugboma MU. Availability and use of indigenous knowledge amongst
rural women in Nigeria. Libr Philos Pract. 2014;2014(1):60–7.
11. Toledo VM. Ethnoecology: a conceptual framework for the study of
indigenous knowledge of nature. In: Ethnobiology and biocultural
diversity: proceedings of the 7th international congress of ethnobiol‑
ogy. Athens, Georgia, USA; 2002. pp. 511–22.
Page 16 of 19
12. Calvet-Mir L, Benyei P, Aceituno-Mata L, Pardo-de-Santayana M, LópezGarcía D, Carrascosa-García M, et al. The contribution of traditional
agroecological knowledge as a digital commons to agroecological
transitions: the case of the CONECT-e platform. Sustainability (Switzer‑
land). 2018;10(3214):1-14
13. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowl‑
edge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl. 2000;10(5):1251–62.
14. Berkes F. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In: Inglis JT,
editor. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. Ottawa;
Canadian Museum of Nature. 1993. p. 1–8.
15. McDade TW, Reyes-García V, Blackinton P, Tanner S, Huanca T,
Leonard WR. Ethnobotanical knowledge is associated with indices
of child health in the Bolivian Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2007;104(15):6134–9.
16. Mbow C, Rosenzweig C, Tubiello FN, Herrero M. IPCC special report
on land and climate change. Chapter 5: food security [Internet]. 2019.
Available from: https://​www.​resea​rchga​te.​net/​publi​cation/​33550​5322.
17. Benyei P, Arreola G, Reyes-García V. Storing and sharing: a review of
indigenous and local knowledge conservation initiatives. Ambio.
2020;49(1):218–30.
18. Lam DPM, Hinz E, Lang DJ, Tengö M, von Wehrden H, Martín-López
B. Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transformations
research: a literature review. Ecol Soc. 2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​
ES-​11305-​250103.
19. Howard P. Women and the plant world, an exploration (ch. 1 of Women
and Plants). 2003;0001(September 2003):0–38.
20. Chambers KJ, Momsen JH. From the kitchen and the field: Gender
and maize diversity in the Bajío region of Mexico. Singap J Trop Geogr.
2007;28(1):39–56.
21. Carr ER. Men’s crops and women’s crops: the importance of gender
to the understanding of agricultural and development outcomes in
Ghana’s central region. World Dev. 2008;36(5):900–15.
22. Padmanabhan M. Women and men as conservers, users and managers
of agrobiodiversity. A feminist social-ecological approach. J Soc-Econ.
2011;40(6):968–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​socec.​2011.​08.​021.
23. Jerban G. The SDGs and gender: the case of indigenous and local
women’s traditional knowledge [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://​
www.​resea​rchga​te.​net/​publi​cation/​33851​4235.
24. Elias M. Distinct, shared and complementary: gendered agroecological
knowledge in review. CAB Direct. 2016;11:1–16.
25. Sundberg J. Feminist political ecology [Internet]. 2015. Available from:
https://​www.​resea​rchga​te.​net/​publi​cation/​28074​1205.
26. Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E. Gender and environment: a
feminist political ecology perspective. In: Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter
B, Wangari E, editors. Feminist political ecology: global issues and local
experiences. New York: Routledge; 1996. p. 3–26.
27. Rivera-Ferre MG, Ortega-Cerdà M, Baumgärtner J. Rethinking study and
management of agricultural systems for policy design. Sustainability
(Switzerland). 2013;5(9):3858–75.
28. Enrique León-Sicard T, Toro Calderón J, Fernando Martínez-Bernal L,
Alejandro Cleves-Leguízamo J. The main agroecological structure (MAS)
of the agroecosystems: concept, methodology and applications. 2018
[cited 2022 Nov 19]; Available from: www.​mdpi.​com/​journ​al/​susta​inabi​
lity.
29. Pullin AS, Stewart GB. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation
and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 2006;20(6):1647–56.
30. Gram G, Vaast P, van der Wolf J, Jassogne L. Local tree knowledge
can fast-track agroforestry recommendations for coffee smallhold‑
ers along a climate gradient in Mount Elgon, Uganda. Agrofor Syst.
2018;92(6):1625–38.
31. Ojelel S, Kakudidi EK. Wild edible plant species utilized by a subsistence
farming community in Obalanga sub-county, Amuria district, Uganda
[Internet]. 2015. Available from: http://​www.​ethno​biomed.​com/​conte​
nt/​11/1/7.
32. Somnasang P, Moreno G, Chusil K. Indigenous knowledge of wild
food hunting and gathering in north-east Thailand. Food Nutr Bull.
1998;19(4):359–65.
33. Ekué MRM, Sinsin B, Eyog-Matig O, Finkeldey R. Uses, traditional
management, perception of variation and preferences in ackee (Blighia
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
(2023) 19:11
sapida K. D. Koenig) fruit traits in Benin: implications for domestication
and conservation. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2010;6:1–14.
Ong HG, Kim YD. The role of wild edible plants in household food
security among transitioning hunter-gatherers: evidence from the
Philippines. Food Secur. 2017;9(1):11–24.
Salako KV, Moreira F, Gbedomon RC, Tovissodé F, Assogbadjo AE, Glèlè
Kakaï RL. Traditional knowledge and cultural importance of Borassus
aethiopum Mart. in Benin: interacting effects of socio-demographic
attributes and multi-scale abundance. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.
2018;14(1):1–16.
Kidane B, van der Maesen LJG, Asfaw Z, Sosef MSM, van Andel T.
Wild and semi-wild leafy vegetables used by the Maale and Ari
ethnic communities in southern Ethiopia. Genet Resour Crop Evol.
2015;62(2):221–34.
Singh RK, Hussain SM, Riba T, Singh A, Padung E, Rallen O, et al. Clas‑
sification and management of community forests in Indian Eastern
Himalayas: implications on ecosystem services, conservation and liveli‑
hoods. Ecol Process. 2018;7(1):1–15.
Aguilar-Santelises R, del Castillo RF. Demographic and socio-economic
determinants of traditional plant knowledge among the Mixtecs of
Oaxaca, Southern Mexico. Hum Ecol. 2015;43(5):655–67. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10745-​015-​9772-y.
Schumann K, Wittig R, Thiombiano A, Becker U, Hahn K. Uses, manage‑
ment, and population status of the baobab in eastern Burkina Faso.
Agrofor Syst. 2012;85(2):263–78.
Mueller JG, Assanou IHB, Dan Guimbo I, Almedom AM. Evaluating
rapid participatory rural appraisal as an assessment of ethnoecological
knowledge and local biodiversity patterns: contributed paper. Conserv
Biol. 2010;24(1):140–50.
Suma TR, Großmann K. Exclusions in inclusive programs: state-spon‑
sored sustainable development initiatives amongst the Kurichya in
Kerala, India. Agric Human Values. 2017;34(4):995–1006.
Singh RK, Turner NJ, Pandey CB. ‘Tinni’ rice (Oryza rufipogon Griff.)
production: an integrated sociocultural agroecosystem in eastern Uttar
Pradesh of India. Environ Manag. 2012;49(1):26–43.
Ngcoya M, Kumarakulasingam N. The lived experience of food
sovereignty: gender, indigenous crops and small-scale farming in
Mtubatuba, South Africa. J Agrar Chang. 2017;17(3):480–96.
Hilou A, Ouedraogo I, Sombié PAED, Guenné S, Paré D, Compaoré M.
Leafy Amaranthus consumption patterns in Ouagadougou, Burkina
Faso. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev. 2016;16(4):11248–64.
Li C, Tang Y, Luo H, Di B, Zhang L. Local farmers’ perceptions of
climate change and local adaptive strategies: a case study from the
Middle Yarlung Zangbo River Valley, Tibet, China. Environ Manag.
2013;52(4):894–906.
Smucker TA, Wangui EE. Gendered knowledge and adaptive practices:
differentiation and change in Mwanga district. Tanzania Ambio.
2016;45(s3):276–86.
Omolo N, Mafongoya PL. Gender, social capital and adaptive capacity
to climate variability: a case of pastoralists in arid and semi-arid regions
in Kenya. Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag. 2019;11(5):744–58.
Naah JBSN, Guuroh RT. Factors influencing local ecological knowledge
of forage resources: ethnobotanical evidence from West Africa’s savan‑
nas. J Environ Manag. 2017;188:297–307. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jenvm​an.​2016.​11.​064.
Calatrava J, Sayadi S. Quality strategies and local farm produce in Medi‑
terranean mountainous areas : the case of handmade goat’s cheese
in the southeastern Spanish Betic Massif. Options Méditerranéennes,
Series A. 2007;78:197–203. Available from: https://​www.​resea​rchga​te.​
net/​profi​le/​Javier_​Calat​rava-​Reque​na2/​publi​cation/​26200​5360_​Quali​
ty_​strat​egies_​and_​local_​farm_​produ​ce_​in_​Medit​erran​ean_​mount​
ainous_​areas_​the_​case_​of_​hand_​made_​goats_​cheese_​in_​the_​south-​
easte​rn_​Spani​sh_​Betic_​massif/​links/​54ed1​2750c.
Oteros-Rozas E, Ontillera-Sánchez R, Sanosa P, Gómez-Baggethun E,
Reyes-García V, González JA. Traditional ecological knowledge among
transhumant pastoralists in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol Socs. 2013.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​05597-​180333.
Upadhyay B. Women and natural resource management: Illustrations
from India and Nepal. Nat Res Forum. 2005;29(3):224–32. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/j.​1477-​8947.​2005.​00132.x.
Page 17 of 19
52. Salpeteur M, Patel HHR, Molina JL, Balbo AL, Rubio-Campillo X, ReyesGarcía V, et al. Comigrants and friends: informal networks and the
transmission of traditional ecological knowledge among seminomadic
pastoralists of Gujarat, India. Ecol Soc. 2016;21(2).
53. Ouédraogo K, Dimobe K, Zerbo I, Etongo D, Zare A, Thiombiano A.
Traditional knowledge and cultural importance of Gardenia erubescens
Stapf & Hutch. in Sudanian savanna of Burkina Faso. J Ethnobiol Eth‑
nomed. 2019;15(1):1–14.
54. Camou-Guerrero A, Reyes-García V, Martínez-Ramos M, Casas A. Knowl‑
edge and use value of plant species in a rarámuri community: a gender
perspective for conservation. Hum Ecol. 2008;36(2):259–72.
55. Díaz-Reviriego I, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Salpeteur M, Howard PL,
Reyes-García V. Gendered medicinal plant knowledge contributions
to adaptive capacity and health sovereignty in Amazonia. Ambio.
2016;45:263–75.
56. Motsumi S, Magole L, Kgathi D. Indigenous knowledge and land
use policy: implications for livelihoods of flood recession farming
communities in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Phys Chem Earth.
2012;50–52:185–95. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​pce.​2012.​09.​013.
57. Iniesta-Arandia I, del Amo DG, García-Nieto AP, Piñeiro C, Montes
C, Martín-López B. Factors influencing local ecological knowledge
maintenance in Mediterranean watersheds: insights for environmental
policies. Ambio. 2014;44(4):285–96.
58. Nightingale A. The nature of gender: work, gender, and environment.
Environ Plan D. 2006;24(2):165–85.
59. Ge J, Resurreccion BP, Elmhirst R. Return migration and the reiteration of
gender norms in water management politics: insights from a Chinese
village. Geoforum. 2011;42(2):133–42.
60. Kerr RB. Lost and found crops: agrobiodiversity, indigenous knowledge,
and a feminist political ecology of sorghum and finger millet in North‑
ern Malawi. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2014;104(3):577–93.
61. Nyantakyi-Frimpong H, Bezner-Kerr R. The relative importance of
climate change in the context of multiple stressors in semi-arid Ghana.
Glob Environ Chang. 2015;1(32):40–56.
62. Assé R, Lassoie JP. Household decision-making in agroforestry parklands
of Sudano-Sahelian Mali. Agrofor Syst. 2011;82(3):247–61.
63. Shrestha PM, Dhillion SS. Diversity and traditional knowledge concern‑
ing wild food species in a locally managed forest in Nepal. Agrofor Syst.
2006;66(1):55–63.
64. Nnamani CV, Ajayi SA, Oselebe HO, Atkinson CJ, Igboabuchi AN, Ezigbo
EC. Sphenostylis stenocarpa (Ex. A. Rich.) harms., a fading genetic
resource in a changing climate: prerequisite for conservation and
sustainability. Plants. 2017;6(30):2-16
65. Wickramasinghe A. Women and minority groups in environmental
management. Sustain Dev. 1997;5:11–20.
66. Mulugo LW, Galabuzi C, Nabanoga GN, Turyahabwe N, Eilu G, Obua J,
et al. Cultural knowledge of forests and allied tree system management
around Mabira forest reserve, Uganda. J For Res. 2019;31(5):1787–1802.
67. Aluko YA. Women’s use of indigenous knowledge for environmental
security and sustainable development in Southwest Nigeria. Int Indig
Policy J. 2018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18584/​iipj.​2018.9.​3.2.
68. Ceccolini L. The homegardens of Soqotra island, Yemen: an example
of agroforestry approach to multiple land-use in an isolated location.
Agrofor Syst. 2002;56(2):107–15.
69. Eyssartier C, Ladio AH, Lozada M. Cultural transmission of traditional
knowledge in two populations of North-western Patagonia. J Ethnobiol
Ethnomed. 2008;15:4.
70. Nyantakyi-Frimpong H, Kerr RB. Hungry farmers: a political ecology of
agriculture and food hungry farmers: a political ecology of agriculture
and food security in Northern Ghana security in Northern Ghana [Inter‑
net]. London, Ontario, Canada; 2014. Available from: https://​ir.​lib.​uwo.​
ca/​etd, https://​ir.​lib.​uwo.​ca/​etd/​2276.
71. Nyantakyi-Frimpong H. Visualizing politics: a feminist political ecology
and participatory GIS approach to understanding smallholder farming,
climate change vulnerability, and seed bank failures in Northern Ghana.
Geoforum. 2019;105:109–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geofo​rum.​2019.​
05.​014.
72. Everard M, Gupta N, Scott CA, Tiwari PC, Joshi B, Kataria G, et al. Assess‑
ing livelihood-ecosystem interdependencies and natural resource
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
(2023) 19:11
governance in Indian villages in the Middle Himalayas. Reg Environ
Change. 2019;19(1):165–77.
Elias M. Gender, knowledge-sharing and management of shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) parklands in central-west Burkina Faso. J Rural Stud.
2015;38:27–38.
Singh RK, Srivastava RC, Pandey CB, Singh A. Tribal institutions and con‑
servation of the bioculturally valuable ‘tasat’ (Arenga obtusifolia) tree in
the eastern Himalaya. J Environ Plan Manag. 2015;58(1):69–90. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09640​568.​2013.​847821.
Singh RK, Singh A, Pandey CB. Agro-biodiversity in rice-wheat-based
agroecosystems of eastern Uttar Pradesh, India: implications for
conservation and sustainable management. Int J Sust Dev World.
2014;21(1):46–59.
Mekonen T, Giday M, Kelbessa E. Ethnobotanical study of homegarden
plants in Sebeta-Awas district of the Oromia Region of Ethiopia to
assess use, species diversity and management practices. J Ethnobiol
Ethnomed. 2015;11(1):1–13.
Sogbohossou EOD, Achigan-Dako EG, van Andel T, Schranz ME.
Drivers of management of spider plant (Gynandropsis gynandra)
across different socio-linguistic groups in Benin and Togo. Econ Bot.
2018;72(4):411–35.
Salazar C, Zizumbo-Villarreal D, Brush SB, Colunga-GarcíaMarín P. Earth
ovens (Píib) in the Maya Lowlands: ethnobotanical data supporting
early use. Econ Bot. 2012;66(3):285–97.
Mingthanzuali H, Pande R. Women’s indigenous knowledge and rela‑
tionship with forests in Mizoram. Asian Agrihist. 2009;13(2):129–46.
Milenge Kamalebo H, Nshimba Seya Wa Malale H, Masumbuko
Ndabaga C, Degreef J, de Kesel A. Uses and importance of wild fungi:
traditional knowledge from the Tshopo province in the Democratic
republic of the Congo. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14(1):1–12.
Gras A, Serrasolses G, Vallès J, Garnatje T. Traditional knowledge in semirural close to industrial areas: ethnobotanical studies in western Gironès
(Catalonia, Iberian Peninsula). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2019;15(1):1–37.
Ragkos A, Koutsou S, Theodoridis A, Manousidis T, Lagka V. Labor man‑
agement strategies in facing the economic crisis. Evidence from greek
livestock farms. New Medit. 2018;17(1):59–71.
Curran G, Barwick L, Turpin M, Walsh F, Laughren M. Central Australian
aboriginal songs and biocultural knowledge: evidence from women’s
ceremonies relating to edible seeds. J Ethnobiol. 2019;39(3):354.
Jethi R, Joshi K, Chandra N. Toward climate change and communitybased adaptation-mitigation strategies in hill agriculture. In: Conser‑
vation agriculture: an approach to combat climate change in Indian
Himalaya. Singapore: Springer; 2016. p. 185–202.
Dumont ES, Bonhomme S, Pagella TF, Sinclair FL. Structured stakeholder
engagement leads to development of more diverse and inclusive
agroforestry options. Experimental Agriculture. 2019;55(S1):252–74.
Martinez VE, Binimelis R, Rivera-Ferre MG. The situation of rural women
in Spain: the case of small-scale artisan food producers. 2014;14(3):3–22.
Wiryono W, Wanandi Y, Ilahi AK, Deselina D, Senoaji G, Siswahyono S.
The local knowledge of the plant names and uses by Semende tribe
people in Kaur district, Bengkulu province, Indonesia. Biodivers J Biol
Divers. 2019;20(3):754–761.
Yigezu Y, Demissew †, Haile B, Ayen WY. Ethnoveterinary medicines in
four districts of Jimma zone, Ethiopia: cross sectional survey for plant
species and mode of use. 2014. Available from: http://​www.​biome​
dcent​ral.​com/​1746-​6148/​10/​76
Minocha R. Gender, environment and social transformation: a
study of selected villages in Himachal Pradesh. Indian J Gend Stud.
2015;22(3):335–357.
Singh RK, Singh A, Garnett ST, Zander KK, Lobsang D. Paisang (Quercus
griffithii): a keystone tree species in sustainable agroecosystem man‑
agement and livelihoods in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Environ Manag.
2014;55(1):187–204.
Singh RK, Rallen O, Padung E. Elderly adi women of Arunachal Pradesh:
‘living Encyclopedias’ and cultural refugia in biodiversity conservation
of the Eastern Himalaya, India. Environ Manag. 2013;52(3):712–735.
Partasmita R, Iskandar BS, Nuraeni S, Iskandar J. Impact of the green
revolution on the gender’s role in wet rice farming: a case study in
Karangwangi village, Cianjur district, West Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas.
2019;20(1):23–36.
Page 18 of 19
93. Mulyoutami E, Rismawan R, Joshi L. Local knowledge and management
of simpukng (forest gardens) among the Dayak people in East Kaliman‑
tan, Indonesia. For Ecol Manag. 2009;257(10):2054–2061.
94. Geng Y, Zhang Y, Ranjitkar S, Huai H, Wang Y. Traditional knowledge
and its transmission of wild edibles used by the Naxi in Baidi Village,
northwest Yunnan province. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1186/​s13002-​016-​0082-2.
95. Kaliszewska I, Kołodziejska-Degórska I. The social context of wild
leafy vegetables uses in Shiri, Daghestan. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.
2015;11(1):1–14.
96. Gemedo-Dalle, Isselstein J, Maass BL. Indigenous ecological knowledge
of Borana pastoralists in southern Ethiopia and current challenges. Int J
Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2006;13(2):113–130.
97. Rigat M, Gras A, D’Ambrosio U, Garnatje T, Parada M, Vallès J. Wild food
plants and minor crops in the Ripollès district (Catalonia, Iberian Penin‑
sula): potentialities for developing a local production, consumption and
exchange program. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12(1):1–16. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1186/​s13002-​016-​0122-y.
98. Luzuriaga-Quichimbo CX, del Barco MH, Blanco-Salas J, Cerón-Martínez
CE, Ruiz-Téllez T. Plant biodiversity knowledge varies by gender in sus‑
tainable Amazonian agricultural systems called chacras. Sustainability
(Switzerland). 2019;11(15):4211.
99. González JA, García-Barriuso M, Amich F. The consumption of wild and
semi-domesticated edible plants in the Arribes del Duero (SalamancaZamora, Spain): an analysis of traditional knowledge. Genet Resour
Crop Evol. 2011;58(7):991–1006.
100. Balima LH, Nacoulma BMI, Ekué MRM, Kouamé FNG, Thiombiano A. Use
patterns, use values and management of Afzelia africana Sm. in Burkina
Faso: implications for species domestication and sustainable conserva‑
tion. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14(1):1–14.
101. Lee SS, Chang YS, Noraswati MNR. Utilization of macrofungi by some
indigenous communities for food and medicine in Peninsular Malaysia.
For Ecol Manag. 2009;257(10):2062–5.
102. Etongo D, Djenontin INS, Kanninen M, Glover EK. Assessing use-values
and relative importance of trees for livelihood values and their poten‑
tials for environmental protection in Southern Burkina Faso. Environ
Dev Sustain. 2017;19(4):1141–66.
103. Feyssa DH, Njoka JT, Asfaw Z, Nyangito MM. Comparative analysis
of indigenous knowledge on use and management of wild edible
plants: the case of central East Shewa of Ethiopia. Ethnobot Res Appl.
2012;10:287–304.
104. Teklehaymanot T. An ethnobotanical survey of medicinal and edible
plants of Yalo Woreda in Afar regional state, Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Eth‑
nomed. 2017;13(1):1–26.
105. Reyes-García V, Vincent Vadez E, Apaza L, Leonard W, Perez E. Market
economy and the loss of folk knowledge of plant uses: estimates from
the Tsimane’ of the Bolivian Amazon. Curr Anthropol. 2005;46(4):651–
656. https://doi.org/10.1086/432777
106. Bortolotto IM, de Mello Amorozo MC, Neto GG, Oldeland J, DamascenoJunior GA. Knowledge and use of wild edible plants in rural com‑
munities along Paraguay River, Pantanal, Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.
2015;11(46):1–14.
107. Yuan Z, Lun F, He L, Cao Z, Min Q, Bai Y, et al. Exploring the state
of retention of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in a Hani
Rice Terrace village, Southwest China. Sustainability (Switzerland).
2014;6(7):4497–4513.
108. Robles-García D, Suzán-Azpiri H, Montoya-Esquivel A, García-Jiménez
J, Esquivel-Naranjo EU, Yahia E, et al. Ethnomycological knowledge in
three communities in Amealco, Quéretaro, México. J Ethnobiol Eth‑
nomed. 2018;14(1):1–13.
109. Kristensen M, Balslev H. Perceptions, use and availability of woody
plants among the Gourounsi in Burkina Faso. Biodivers Conserv.
2003;12(8):1715–39.
110. Castro A, Lascurain-Rangel M, Gómez-Díaz JA, Sosa V. Mayan homegar‑
dens in decline: the case of the Pitahaya (Hylocereus undatus), a Vine
Cactus with edible fruit. Trop Conserv Sci. 2018;11:194008291880873.
111. Reyes-García V. Introduction to special section: on the relations
between schooling and local knowledge. Learn Individ Differ.
2013;27:201–5.
Ramirez‑Santos et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
(2023) 19:11
Page 19 of 19
112. Gómez-Baggethun E, Corbera E, Reyes-García V. Traditional ecological
knowledge and global environmental change: research findings and
policy implications. Ecol Soc. 2013;18(4):72.
113. Singh RK, Srivastava RC. Biocultural knowledge and adi community:
conservation and sustainability in biodiversity hotspot of Arunachal
Pradesh. Curr Sci. 2009;96(7):883–884.
114. Sansanelli S, Ferri M, Salinitro M, Tassoni A. Ethnobotanical survey of
wild food plants traditionally collected and consumed in the Middle
Agri Valley (Basilicata region, southern Italy). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.
2017;13(1):1–11.
115. Camarero L, Sampedro R. ¿Por qué se van las mujeres? El continuum de
movilidad como hipótesis explicativa de la masculinización rural. Rev
Esp Invest Sociol. 2008;124:73–105.
116. Sultana F. Gendering climate change: geographical insights*. Vol. 66,
The Professional Geographer. 2014.
117. Memon MH, Aamir N, Ahmed N. Climate change and drought: impact
of food insecurity on gender based vulnerability in district Tharparkar.
The Pakistan Development Review. 2018.
118. Aryal KP, Poudel S, Chaudhary RP, Chettri N, Chaudhary P, Ning W, et al.
Diversity and use of wild and non-cultivated edible plants in the West‑
ern Himalaya. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14(1):1–18.
119. Zulu D, Ellis RH, Culham A. Collection, consumption, and Sale of Lusala
(Dioscorea hirtiflora)—a Wild Yam—by rural households in Southern
Province, Zambia. Econ Bot. 2019;73(1):47–63.
120. Hutchful E. Ghana’s adjustment experience: the paradox of reform,
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. UNRISD.
2002.
121. Orlove B, Roncoli C, Kabugo M, Majugu A. Indigenous climate knowl‑
edge in southern Uganda: the multiple components of a dynamic
regional system. Clim Change. 2010;100:243–265.
122. Calvet-Mir L, Riu-Bosoms C, González-Puente M, Ruiz-Mallén I, ReyesGarcía V, Molina JL. The transmission of home garden knowledge:
safeguarding biocultural diversity and enhancing social-ecological
resilience. Soc Nat Resour. 2016;29(5):556–71.
123. Reyes-García V, Paneque-Gálvez J, Luz A, Gueze M, Macía M, Orta-Mar‑
tínez M, et al. Cultural change and traditional ecological knowledge:
an empirical analysis from the Tsimane’ in the Bolivian Amazon. Hum
Organ. 2014s;73(2):162–73.
124. Brown L, Strega S, Kovach M. Emerging from the margins: indig‑
enous methodologies. Res Resist Indig Anti-Oppressive Approaches.
2015;2:43–64.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub‑
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
Ready to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from:
• fast, convenient online submission
• thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field
• rapid publication on acceptance
• support for research data, including large and complex data types
• gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations
• maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year
At BMC, research is always in progress.
Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions